|
Post by twoheadedragon on Jul 27, 2009 10:22:21 GMT
But we don't live in those countries, generally. Well, "those countries" have a combined total of about 300,000,000 people... Not quite sure who you mean by "we." (I'm guessing you mean Caucasians?)
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Jul 27, 2009 11:17:02 GMT
But we don't live in those countries, generally. Well, "those countries" have a combined total of about 300,000,000 people... Not quite sure who you mean by "we." (I'm guessing you mean Caucasians?) Yeah, uh.. Not quite sure what you're on about either?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jul 27, 2009 11:51:38 GMT
My thought about it take on this is that equal opportunities goes through 3 phases (once it's established).
1) Fight tooth and nail - It's so new that those that have just gained acceptance are still fighting to ensure that it isn't taken away 2) Pride of place - Now that people have had equality for a while, some rare individuals are starting to gain positions of power/authority/limelight. 3) Acceptance - People are regularly achiving positions of importance, and as far as the general populace is concerned, they are no different to other people, and so their differences start fading into the background.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 27, 2009 13:14:36 GMT
Sounds about right, DPR, yes.
|
|
|
Post by ss on Jul 27, 2009 17:15:01 GMT
My thought about it take on this is that equal opportunities goes through 3 phases (once it's established). 1) Fight tooth and nail - It's so new that those that have just gained acceptance are still fighting to ensure that it isn't taken away 2) Pride of place - Now that people have had equality for a while, some rare individuals are starting to gain positions of power/authority/limelight. 3) Acceptance - People are regularly achiving positions of importance, and as far as the general populace is concerned, they are no different to other people, and so their differences start fading into the background. Those are probably true statements DPR, and they may come about concerning homosexuality, who knows. Personally, I think it will be hard to get either Christianity, Judaism, or Islam to go there. The reason for that is that their "source of authority" for their belief calls homosexuality a sin. (and if they can be labeled, a BAD one). We are talking about a vast number of people that embrace those 3 religions. So...unless they want to compromise, or "edit" their bible/koran or such, they have to make the stand that it is what it is... Granted, some have already chose to either avoid, rewrite, or "rethink" the issue..but to remain "orthodox" to those teachings, it can not be acceptable... But before some think (as they always do.. : that to make such statements are "homophobic"...I say stuff it....It is making a statement of belief, not "fear"...I make the same statement concerning murder, adultery, or any other labeled "sin"...they are all equally forbidden.... I do not "shun" homosexuals any more that I would adulterers..(even though I might watch out for murderers) ;D There is a VAST difference between knowing someone is in sin that persecuting them for that sin..It was, after all, Jesus who said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 27, 2009 18:16:33 GMT
And there's the answer, ss: an acceptance that others are allowed to believe differently to oneself is all it would take. In the West at least, the major religions may never accept homosexuality is not a sin, but they can accept it hurts no-one but the 'sinner' and so agree to live and let live. As you yourself say, in fact Outside the West the road is a lot harder, but I think any state must first embrace the separation of church & state before they can ever embrace the idea of live & let live.
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Jul 28, 2009 1:17:04 GMT
i guess i can speak for both 2HD & myself that religious belief shapes the minds of the people in our countries. even more so in Malaysia where the 'official' religion, Islam, is government-controlled, therefore a political tool to be used by the ruling party time & time again to ensure control over the populace.
following DPR's phase, Asia's behind even the 1st stage.
|
|
|
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Jul 28, 2009 3:03:04 GMT
*sighs* And in SouthEast Asia, at least 100 to 200 years ago, to think that gays and transgenders(not sure if this is the correct term and also, not sure about lesbians) were quite accepted here. Talk about a major regression of rights and harmony, huh?
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Jul 28, 2009 3:13:40 GMT
all due to politicizing & monopolizing religions. my personal belief is that intersexuals are people like the rest of us; whatever that they do behind doors isn't my concern.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jul 28, 2009 3:14:23 GMT
ss and what you said on page 1 - like Ash rightly realized, I wasn't caring about their political views, if I ould have, I probably couldn't have posted anyone... ... I tried (unsuccessfully) to take that aside and simply be amazed about how brave some people are. I now would love to make a statement about how "generous" it is of you and the rest of the christians to just state and know that homosexuals are 'living in sin' but not throwing stone at them. How civilized. Thanks you very much... @ Sonar - that sucks :/
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Jul 28, 2009 3:59:52 GMT
I now would love to make a statement about how "generous" it is of you and the rest of the christians to just state and know that homosexuals are 'living in sin' but not throwing stone at them. How civilized. Thanks you very much... Thank you. I was about to ban myself from responding to this thread again after reading that for fear that I might.. Well, yes. I agree with Kitty here. Obviously, just the thought that someone is a sinner doesn't hurt anyone at all. Also, I wonder how long it will take for #3 to happen anywhere with any of these sorts of situations.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jul 28, 2009 9:38:09 GMT
In the west, 3 is happening at the moment but we are still transitioning out of 2 with regards to homosexuality, with women in the work place, 3 has already happened, and it's now a case of just sorting out the minor details.
However this govenment seems to be hellbent on undoing the last 50 years of progress with their decrees that they are the moral compass for the country.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 28, 2009 12:03:40 GMT
It's because all the money, power and vested interests are concentrated in #1 and #2, DPR. There's none of that in #3. It's why a lot of groups/organisations that are set up originally to get to stage 3 end up actually hindering their cause - if the cause is won, they lose income, power and prestige.
The current UK govt is convinced that pandering to these organisations will secure votes, so pander it does - and the people they are supposed to be HELPING be damned...
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Jul 29, 2009 3:27:17 GMT
In the west, 3 is happening at the moment but we are still transitioning out of 2 with regards to homosexuality, with women in the work place, 3 has already happened, and it's now a case of just sorting out the minor details. However this govenment seems to be hellbent on undoing the last 50 years of progress with their decrees that they are the moral compass for the country. Minor details like still being paid less and a lower percentage of success in the work place because of their gender? We're still transitioning on all of them, obviously, and it is the transition that will most likely take decades. Which makes me dislike people again. Boo humans.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jul 29, 2009 3:50:06 GMT
In the west, 3 is happening at the moment but we are still transitioning out of 2 with regards to homosexuality, with women in the work place, 3 has already happened, and it's now a case of just sorting out the minor details. However this govenment seems to be hellbent on undoing the last 50 years of progress with their decrees that they are the moral compass for the country. Minor details like still being paid less and a lower percentage of success in the work place because of their gender? We're still transitioning on all of them, obviously, and it is the transition that will most likely take decades. Which makes me dislike people again. Boo humans. (R)Amen.
|
|
|
Post by rockergrl on Jul 30, 2009 18:22:22 GMT
I think I get the point that Kitty was trying to make with this topic, she was just happy to know that accomplishments are being made with homosexuals whether it's in government or wherever else. It's just like how people of another race get proud when stuff like this happens. No things shouldn't be based on race or sexual orientation but sometimes people express their happiness because it is more of a struggle for people like this.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 30, 2009 19:17:02 GMT
It can be, K, but a lot honestly depends on which country they live in. In Britain right now there is at least one homosexual in the Cabinet (IE the small elite at the very top of govt who run the country) and if the other main party gets in after the next general election, as seems likely, there will be at least a couple. For much of Britain right now, it's simply a non-issue and the politicians in question do not seek to make it into one. They are politicians who happen to be gay, not GAY POLITICIANS!!! if you get me. The same is true for much of Europe and, I suspect, much of the more urban parts of America, too. Obviously, my own main area of political knowledge is Britain, so I'll stick to that As mentioned earlier, the battle is pretty much won, in Britain. Both major parties have a number of openly homosexual MPs and homosexual cabinet members are not unusual. I'm sure there are still people who will vote on issues that do not relate to politics, but that's true everywhere and of every difference you care to name. The point is that anti-homosexual bias in politics is not strong enough to either discourage or prevent candidates being selected and then voted into parliament. One of our best and most popular political bloggers is Iain Dale who was the first openly homosexual candidate for the Conservative party. You could actually read the site for a while before you ever realise he's homosexual, though, as he just treats his sexuality the same way a heterosexual would - IE that it's just part of who he is and nothing to get excited over. His attitude is very typical of the approach by all parties in British politics and I suspect he'd hate being described as 'A Homosexual Blogger' because it puts his sexuality before his achievements - which if you read his blog bio are pretty darned impressive. The most powerful man in British politics right now is of course Peter Mandelson, that great master of the dark art of the Spin Doctor, inventor of New Labour and the only reason the current PM has managed to cling to power. If you read his political bio at the site I linked to, you'll notice it says nothing about him being homosexual, which he is. As with Iain Dale and at least half a dozen others whose names I forget, he is a politician first and foremost and would doubtless have it no other way. While a lot of people don't like Mandelson, it's because of what he does as a politician, not what he does in his bedroom, which is the way it should be. So yeah - battle's well and truly won in Britain Anyone else want to comment on their own country?
|
|
|
Post by Hildor on Jul 31, 2009 9:16:17 GMT
I find it weird that people keep on yelling to accept gays and lesbiennes as part of the "normal" group and at the same time raise them above the "normal" group. If we let them be who they are and don't kill, opress or think wrong of them because of it, it's fine by me.
"This politician is gay and he comes out for it! Isn't that great?" "And I am hetero, did he do anything about the gas prices yet?"
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jul 31, 2009 10:14:03 GMT
^ That is all nice IN THEORY Hildor but in societies where homosexuality is still and will be a long time a "crime" or (hello ss) a "sin" it is [Censored]ing brave to be openly gay.
We also honor people who run in front of giant tanks to stop them or chain themself to trees even though it should be common knowledge that war is never going to bring a good result and that the enviroment is precious. It's the same kind of bravary. Sure, in most countries gays don't face death... they just get told that they'll burn in hell, mess with kids brains and are generally drity, potentially HIV-infested perverts. Loverly.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 31, 2009 11:15:36 GMT
For any of the Islamic nations or most of Africa, I agree with Kit. For Europe and most of the West, I'm more with Hildor. For America, I think it depends where you are. You'd certainly have to be VERY brave to come out in the Bible Belt...
It's not brave to be part of a minority unless there is a real chance of being persecuted or harassed for it. I suspect most if not all of us are part of SOME minority that others would like to persecute, whether it's atheists, role players, video gamers or anything else that is too little understood by enough people that they start campaigning to outlaw it.
Homosexuals have had it far worse than most, historically, but thankfully attitudes ARE changing and there is a groundswell of support for the idea that gays are just ordinary people and should be treated as such (Which is well past time).
The fact that attitudes are improving IS a great testament to the immense bravery, determination and fortitude of a lot of campaigners, though, and in no way am I intending disrespect to them! Overcoming the biases of history is not an easy undertaking.
|
|